No ratings yet.

The article by Pisano and Verganti (2008) defines a crowdsourcing quadrant. The Innovation Mall with an open network and hierarchical governance. The Innovation Community with an open network and flat governance. The Elite Circle uses a closed network and hierarchical governance. Finally, the Consortium with a closed network and flat governance. The article provides a lot of examples, but I think it paints a rosy picture. Implementing such strategies is hard and risky in practice. Therefore I miss a critical note or challenges of this framework.

The second article by Malone et al. (2010) provides a crowdsourcing framework of four questions. Fist, what is being done; the activity and the solutions can the crowd provide. Second, who is doing it; the crowd or the management. Third, why are they doing it; for love, glory, money or a combination of these incentives. Finally, how is it being done; by a collection of individuals or a collaboration and does the crowd decide on individual or group level. Pros to this framework are that it’s flexible and that incentives are included. Cons are that the framework isn’t fully developed yet and there’s no assessment of the challenges when implementing it.

The third article by Borison and Hamm (2010) is on prediction markets as a tool for strategic decision making. This uses competitive betting to tap into collective intelligence on future matters. The informed guesswork of the crowd is consolidated into hard probability either for private or public issues. I believe the prediction market tool is most effective in social issues, because the private sector is volatile and risky. Still, because of the immaturity of the tool, it’s probably best to combine it with the more traditional decision theory.

In addition an article on crowdfunding. This study by Mollick (2014) looks at the dynamics of crowdfunding. Success is based on quality judgements, geographic components and timely product is delivery. A good pitch, network size and funding duration are quality indicators. Cultural location characteristics also have an effect on the success of a project. Timely delivery is often a problem, even when the funding is successful. The article creates a clear outline of crowdfunding and helps to shed a light on assessing quality for funders and informs entrepreneurs about increasing their chances.

Of the mini-cases on crowdfunding the first one is about the Pebble Smart Watch. Having set their funding goal on $100.000, the company raised $10.266.845 from 68,929 backers using Kickstarter. This crowdfunding campaign enabled Pebble to create the crowds interest for their smart watch, which a strength. Its weakness was the planning and manufacturing issues, delaying the backers pre-orders over three months.

The second mini-case is about the ‘Luchtsingel’ in Rotterdam. Backers could buy a bridge element ranging from €25 to €1.250, with their name or a message, receiving recognition for support. The initiative was funded for €50.000. The strength of this campaign was that the backing community was actively used to collect votes in the contest for best public initiative of Rotterdam, making the project win €4.000.000. Its weakness was not using a crowdfunding platform. Funding now remained very local while other Dutch people would have liked to back this project too.

References

Alios, J.D. (2015, February 24^th). Pebble SmartWatch: Crowdfunding Again Tops $3 Million Immediately [online article]. Accessed at: http://www.crowdfundinsider.com.

Borison, A., & Hamm, G. (2010). Prediction markets: A new tool for strategic decisionmaking. California Management Review, 52(4), 125-141.

Kleverlaan, R. (2012, March 16^th). 4 miljoen voor Luchtsingel: crowdfunding als hefboomvoor financiering [online article]. Accessed at: http://www.frankwatching.com/

Malone, T. W., Laubacher, R., & Dellarocas, C. (2010). The collective intelligencegenome. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 38(3), 38.

Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1-16.

Pisano, G. P., & Verganti, R. (2008). Which kind of collaboration is right for you. Harvard business review, 86(12), 78-86

No ratings yet.

Can you imagine yourself travelling half way across town and then having to stand in line for a taco or a few dumplings at a mobile food stand? I sure can’t! But for many people in the big cities of the US this is daily practice. Here, the once despised of ‘roach coaches’, selling low quality food, were turned into artfully spray-painted food trucks providing affordable, creative, high quality meals. But what made this such a success that people actively ‘hunt down’ their favourite truck for lunch or a snack? The answer is social media.

It all started around 2008 when two befriended L.A. chefs executed their idea for the Kogi BBQ food truck. Initially they had a hard time selling their Korean-Mexican fusion cuisine, but soon found out that social media was the perfect tool for reaching the general public. Making use of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and popular blogging platforms they quickly gained a following of young and plugged-in urban people who spread the word. Within months Kogi attracted hundreds of followers, making the truck a successful community in itself.  Nowadays Kogi has a Twitter following of nearly 135.000 people and expanded their L.A. business to five trucks in total.

This success together with the economic recession, which made a food truck much more financially feasible than opening a restaurant, fueled a completely new ‘food movement’. Making skilled chefs and entrepreneurs start high quality food trucks, creating customer engagement and word of mouth for their mobile business through social media. Turning what seemed to be a fad into a multi-million dollar industry.

Even though it’s a booming industry, business can be tough. Next to a colourful truck and a catchy name, you really need to distinguish yourself in order to be successful. Because they operate a mobile business, every food truck owner is very active on social media. Using Twitter for quick updates on location, wait times, special offers or when they’ve sold out of certain items; Instagram for posting pictures of dishes and ‘life on the road’; popular blogging platforms to share their passion and Facebook to interact.

Also, many owners connect to local ‘foodie’ bloggers, the field’s opinion leaders, about their business, additions to the menu or special events. When these influential people spread a positive message on their already popular networks, this might make a specific food truck more popular. But the best online strategy that distinguishes success from the mass, according to successful food truck owners, is listening to your customers and engaging on what’s important to them. This online conversation can be about anything the audience cares about; new music or artists, favourite bands, trends, interesting links or simply the food.

Nevertheless popular vendors say that the emphasis on social media being their success is perhaps somewhat overrated. Of course it’s very important to their business, but it doesn’t do the cooking. Or as the creative director of Kogi BBQ states: “Food is my business. Culture is my department. And social media is just the bridge that allows for me to let those two worlds talk to one another.” Personally I couldn’t agree more. How about you?

References

Brindley, D. (2015, July) How One Korean Taco Truck Launched an $800 Million Industry. A Los Angeles chef took a crazy idea and sparked a food movement on wheels [online article]. Accessed at: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/food-trucks/brindley-text

Mariah, M. (2014, august 12^th). Food Trucks And Social Media – What Your Business Can Learn From The Masters [blog]. Accessed at: http://www.standardmarketing.com/2014/08/food-trucks-social-media-business-can-learn-masters/

Myrick, R. (2012). The Complete History of American Food Trucks [online article]. Accessed at: http://mobile-cuisine.com/business/history-of-american-food-trucks/

Sniderman, Z. (2011, June 16^th). How Social Media Is Fueling the Food Truck Phenomenon [online article]. Accessed at: http://mashable.com/2011/06/16/food-trucks-social-media/

No ratings yet.

Recently singer Mika launched the Twitter campaign #rompioilsilenzio (break the silence), against the discrimination of homosexuals, which was trending topic on Twitter for hours. After one of his concert posters was daubed with the word ‘frocio’ (faggot) in the city of Florence he responded to his Twitter fan base to go against this. When taking a closer look at celebrity management, self-branding, (fan) engagement and word of mouth Twitter is one of the best social media options.

The rise of social media has changed celebrity culture in the way people relate to celebrities and how celebrity is ‘practiced’. There used to be a highly controlled and regulated ‘celebrity management’ in traditional media. But Twitter, probably more than other social media, transformed this into an active interaction between artists and their fan base.

The fact that a celebrity grants you a peek into his or her thoughts or daily life through messages and pictures and you can @reply to this creates a sense of intimacy, like you can really connect and make this person ‘part of your everyday life’. If fans receive @replies back, they function as a public acknowledgement and are publicized within the fan community. Celebrities mention fans or react to fan requests (like Mika) to perform connection and availability, give back to followers, manage their popularity, brand and thus increase engagement and word of mouth. Next to this, celebrities on Twitter use language, words, cultural symbols, and conventions in order to create affiliation with their followers, which also adds to the feel of authenticity of the celebrity Twitter account. Unlike firms, a celebrity Twitter account needs this feel of authenticity because otherwise there will be scepticism about the genuineness of the microblog.

Thus, Twitter is the ideal medium in creating a sense ‘back stage’ access through ‘front stage’ actions. For a celebrity this requires a carefully constructed self-presentation, self-branding or identity performance. Of course a famous person never really expose their actual private life on social media. But with celebrity becoming a performative, interactive practice through Twitter, they need to manoeuvre in a complex social environment in which fans, other famous people and intermediaries like gossip reporters co-exist. So it can be tricky business. Because a celebrity’s actions on Twitter may also backfire, depending on the contextual point of view, creating negative exposure. On the other hand, Twitter also makes it easier to respond to gossip and bad publicity directly.

In Mika’s case, his Twitter action involving the ‘poster incident’ created a positive effect amongst fans, in the industry and the (old and new) media. Lucky coincidence that this happened a few months after releasing his new album and announcing upcoming concerts. Making his Twitter campaign add to awareness, ‘Mika brand’ engagement, word of mouth and probably increasing revenue in its wake. I’m curious about your thoughts on this; is it too much of a coincidence or is it just making really good use of someone’s bad taste, meaning the person who vandalised the poster?

 References

Hoffman, D. L., & Fodor, M. (2010). Can you measure the ROI of your social media marketing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(1), 41-49.

Marwick, A. (2011). To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter. Convergence: the international journal of research into new media technologies, 17(2), 139-158.

Wildenberg, van der N. (2015, 2 April) Mika komt ook met nieuw album [online article]. Accessed at: http://www.maxazine.nl/2015/04/02/mika-komt-ook-met-nieuw-album/

http://www.top40.nl/nieuws/mika-laat-niet-met-zich-sollen

http://www.winq.nl/2015/08/zanger-mika-start-campagne-tegen-homohaat/

No ratings yet.

As some of you may know going out to run or cycle usually requires some self-motivation. Often it is a somewhat lonely form of exercise unless, of course, you can share it with others. This social aspect of exercising together often contributes to an elevated level of effort or even playful competition. Let’s face it, as childish as it may be, beating my running partner with just a few meters at the end of our run adds to the fun of exercising together.

The California based Strava company is responding to this with their free mobile running and cycling apps. It uses the GPS on your phone to monitor your location, speed and time on a specific route. Afterwards your performance is automatically forwarded to the Strava site and your Facebook account, so you can evaluate yourself and share your performance with friends. But in contrast to other apps that do about the same, Strava compares your performance to other users who ran or cycled (parts of) the same route or ‘segment’. Thus, the app makes a ranking in which the fastest is rewarded the prize of being king or queen of that segment and creates the need amongst users to set a faster time on that segment next time.

In doing so Strava has created a sort of location based multiplayer mobile game by exploiting our (competitive) human nature. This is the very core of the gamification of sport. It makes use of what social psychologists call ‘social facilitation’; people try harder when they’re being watched, even digitally. All of this implies that the sporting activity which originally is recreational, relaxing, playful and fun, gets transformed into a rule and competition based game.

On the one hand this development can be regarded as positive, because it makes running and cycling more challenging. Besides this, it can be an intrinsic motivation for people to keep on exercising in order to achieve a specific goal. Nevertheless motivation can also be extrinsic. This expresses itself in reward systems which are reflected in social competitive elements like leader boards, the ability to enter into competitions and being ‘crowned’ king or queen. The extrinsic motivation often prevails after a while, hence, the users act as the developer intended keeping the online network of competitive enthusiasts alive. Thereby Strava creates the opportunity to brand itself and generate revenue from merchandising, premium versions and ads.

Harmless, right?! Not completely. In hindsight lot of users regret the day they downloaded the app. They indeed cannot help focussing on the competitive element instead of just enjoying running or cycling and using the app for monitoring their progress and sharing this with others. The fact that everyone can see (and judge) your results only adds to the experienced (social) pressure. This may even become catastrophic; a few years ago a Strava using cyclist died while descending a mountain, trying to break someone else’s record. I think I’ll keep running analogue…

References

Fretz, C. (2012, 19 June). Family sues Strava over descending death [online article].

Accessed at: http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/06/news/family-sues-strava-over-descending-death_224889

Guerin, B. (2010). Social facilitation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Raessens, J. (2006). Playful identities, or the ludification of culture. Games and Culture,

1(1), 52-57.

Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game

mechanics in web and mobile apps. O’Reilly Media, Inc.

Zonneveld, T. (2013, 18 June). Met de Strava op mijn hielen [online article]. Accessed at:

http://www.nu.nl/sport/3502016/met-strava-mijn-hielen.html